Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:In the spotlight (Score 1) 993

Since when did Linux become known for stability and avoidance of latest/greatest? When exactly was it that Linux became a legacy style OS?

He was talking about Debian, which is generally a long-term, server operating system, unless you use the unstable/testing branches.

Comment: Complain to choosers, not creators (Score 2) 993

Complain to your distributions!
When someone writes open source software, it is always take it or leave it. Systemd was taken up, because it was the better solution for distros.
Why on earth would you complain about someone adding another choice? Complain about the people not writing alternative packages!

Comment: Re:It doesn't matter (Score -1, Troll) 147

by buchner.johannes (#48002583) Attached to: PostgreSQL Outperforms MongoDB In New Round of Tests

"Web-scale" is "big enough to hold a Wordpress database"?

Its more about the load, i.e. how many people can you serve a Wordpress page per second. A static html page can be served extremely fast, the linux kernel doesn't even have to load it into RAM, it goes from disk to network directly. For a Wordpress page, multiple SQL queries have to be waited for, probably something writes to the database as well (recording the visitor). All this is implemented with complex locks. I think the trade-off NoSQL would like to do is to have less complex locks, write a bit in parallel in good faith, and thus have faster turn-around.

Comment: Re:Cue "All we are is dust in the wind" (Score 3, Insightful) 133

by buchner.johannes (#47971671) Attached to: "Big Bang Signal" Could All Be Dust

Oh hey, I'll just fix that for you:

- The universe did not come from nothing. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe did not create itself. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe was not created.


Thermodynamics is a theory valid for a large number of particles, and deals with the emerging phenomena based on a statistical basis, i.e. what constitutes rare phenomena. This is not enough to deal with the early universe. Even if it was, there might be an infinite "time" or "tries" before our universe exists so we can observe it.
Also, the term "create" is vague. Arguable, one can speak of creation as early inflation expands the universe and cools the soup of radiation into massive particle. In that sense some earlier state *did* create the universe as we understand it (time, space, and matter).

Also it is not true that "The universe did not come from nothing. Thermodynamics prevents this." It is possible to create a universe from nothing. What you do is borrow energy from a quantum fluctuation. You would have to give it back in a time proportional to the energy borrowed. Then inflate the universe by 10^26 so that the quantum fluctuation becomes a size-able scale, and quantum mechanics do not apply anymore. The energy borrowed obviously necessitates a balancing energy, which is stored (as negative energy) in the curvature of the universe. In a sense, enormous inflation allows you to run away with borrowed energy.
Sorry for being brief in my explanation, but the above is not a crackpot theory. It is one that is consistent with the data of the CMB and large-scale structure correlations (e.g. galaxy clusters), and commonly presented in cosmology talks. You can find some books on the subject if you search for "universe inflation", one by Alan Guth who came up with the basic theory.

The right answer is "We do not know yet where the universe came from."
and "We do not know yet if the quest for a 'cause' makes sense in the early universe or has a testable answer. But we will continue trying."

Now it is possible to call the "creation" of the universe a god, in the Greek sense of the word. The creator. A mechanism. But it is a long way from there to argue a currently present, omnipotent but willfully acting, personally addressable God.

Comment: Re:Dust? (Score 1) 133

by buchner.johannes (#47971599) Attached to: "Big Bang Signal" Could All Be Dust

The dust only accounts for the swirl patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), not the CMB itself. In other words, the 'imprint' of gravitational waves in the CMB might be an erroneous discovery, and this is not unexpected at all, since gravitational waves have yet to be demonstrated.

It is unexpected depending on your expectations on the BICEP2 paper. If you read the paper, they go through a lot of checking in the analysis to demonstrate that the signal is real. From that perspective it is a believable demonstration. If you are very skeptical, you would say the dust maps they used are perhaps not up-to-date or accurate. Naturally, scientists are skeptical. So we were anticipating the release of the dust maps by the best detector, the ESA Planck mission.

What they demonstrate in their paper (the topic here) is, perhaps unexpectedly, that there are no dust-free windows of the CMB, i.e. in all galactic latitudes, dust creates B-modes. In a range of extragalactical surveys it is common to do surveys at high galactic latitudes, where the effects of dust (from star formation), such as absorption and extinction, are small. This is demonstrated to be not possible for CMB B-mode measurements. Unfortunately this means that the analysis of B-modes will require a more complex analysis, and perhaps it is not even possible to detect B-modes of the desired magnitude due to the Milky Way foreground noise.

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 2) 149

"Under the EU's state aid rules, national authorities cannot take measures allowing certain companies to pay less tax than they should if the tax rules of the Member State were applied in a fair and non-discriminatory way,"

It is not possible to specifically write one company into the law as exempt. Now it has been done by making laws such that they only apply to one company, but these practices are being sued now.

So no, it is not common place outside the US, and certainly not as easy.

But the voting in the US is dominated by companies anyways, it is a very different climate and understanding of democracy than anywhere else.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.